DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0266422 A1).
Claim 1: Lee discloses an electrochemical device, namely a lithium secondary battery ([0011]), comprising a positive electrode ([0150]; LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 positive active material, [0170]), a separator (a polyethylene separator, [0159]), an electrolyte solution (LiPF6 dissolved in a carbonate solvent, [0172]), and a negative electrode ([0011]), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector (a copper foil, [0166]) and a negative active material layer disposed on a surface of the negative current collector ([0166]).
Lee further discloses that, as tested by differential scanning calorimetry, the negative active material layer exhibits an exothermic peak at a temperature ranging from room temperature to 450° C. — specifically, an exothermic peak having an apex at 370° C. to 390° C. ([0065], [0069]) — and that a peak area (heating value) of that exothermic peak, W, is 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0015], [0069]; Fig. 4).
Lee also discloses that the negative active material of that layer is natural graphite, artificial graphite, or a combination thereof ([0096]), the worked negative electrode using both natural and artificial graphite ([0169]); the same graphite negative active material recited in claim 1.
The instant specification obtains the peak area W of the exothermic peak from a differential scanning calorimetry curve of a specimen of the negative active material layer, taken from a fully discharged and disassembled cell and heated from room temperature at a heating rate of 0.1 K/min to 50 K/min (specification [0067] - [0068]). Lee measures the same quantity on the same specimen; the negative active material layer, tested by differential scanning calorimetry at a heating rate of 5° C./min ([0068]), which falls within the specification’s disclosed heating-rate range — and discloses that the peak area (heating value) W of the exothermic peak is 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]), including worked values of 75.65 J/g, 128.5 J/g, and 139.27 J/g (Fig. 4).
Lee discloses W of 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]) and a graphite ID/IG of 0.7 or less ([0053]), such that A = W/(ID/IG) of the negative active material layer overlaps the claimed range of 150 ≤ A ≤ 750, as set forth with respect to claim 1.
Lee does not identically disclose the following recited values: the quantity A = W/( ID/IG) of 150 ≤ A ≤ 750 (claims 1-2); the exothermic onset temperature 100 ≤ T1 ≤ 250 (claim 6); the complete-decomposition temperature 400 ≤ T3 ≤ 550 (claim 8); the exothermic power per unit mass 0.035 ≤ P ≤ 0.280 mW/mg (claim 9); the exothermic onset temperature 110 ≤ T1 ≤ 205 (claim 10); and the initial peak temperature 150 ≤ T2 ≤ 370 (claim 11). Lee instead discloses, for the negative active material layer, a peak area W of 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]); a graphite ID/IG of 0.7 or less ([0053]); exothermic onset temperatures of approximately 206° C. to 262° C. and initial exothermic peak apexes from 281.9° C. (control) to approximately 388° C. (Fig. 4); and a further exothermic peak apex at 450° C. to 510° C. ([0014], [0067]). Each recited value is addressed claim by claim below.
The instant specification obtains ID/IG as the ratio of the Raman peak intensity of the negative active material layer at 1350 cm-1 (ID) to that at 1580 cm-1 (IG) (specification [0070]). Lee discloses the same ratio for the graphite particles of that same negative active material layer — the ratio of the Raman peak intensity at 1350 cm-1 to that at 1580 cm-1 (ID/IG); as being 0.7 or less ([0053]).
Because Lee discloses the same graphite negative active material layer recited in claim 1, and expressly discloses both the peak area W and the Raman ratio ID/IG of that layer as measured by the same methods set forth in the specification, the quantity A = W/( ID/IG) is a property disclosed by, and necessarily present in, the negative active material layer of Lee. The values of W (50 J/g to 200 J/g) and ID/IG (0.7 or less) disclosed by Lee yield values of A = W/(ID/IG) that fall within and overlap the claimed range of 150 ≤ A ≤ 1000; for example, a layer of Lee having a W of 139.27 J/g (Fig. 4) and a graphite ID/IG of 0.7 or less exhibits A within 150 ≤ A ≤ 1000. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior-art range overlap (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen a negative active material layer having a value of A = W/(ID/IG) within the claimed range of 150 ≤ A ≤ 1000.
Claim 2: Lee discloses W of 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]) and a graphite ID/IG of 0.7 or less ([0053]), such that A = W/(ID/IG) of the negative active material layer overlaps the claimed range of 150 ≤ A ≤ 750, as set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3: Lee discloses that the peak area W of the exothermic peak is 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]), which falls entirely within the claimed range of 20 ≤ W ≤ 490.
Claim 4: Lee discloses that the peak area W of the exothermic peak is 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]), and that the worked negative active material layers exhibit heating values from 100 J/g to 200 J/g (Fig. 4), which fall within the claimed range of 100 ≤ W ≤ 300.
Claim 5: Lee discloses that the graphite particles of the negative active material layer have a Raman ID/IG of 0.7 or less ([0053]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.13 ≤ ID/IG ≤ 0.54. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior-art range overlap (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen at a Raman ID/IG within the claimed range of 0.13 ≤ ID/IG ≤ 0.54.
Claim 6: Lee discloses that, as tested by differential scanning calorimetry, the negative active material layer exhibits an exothermic onset temperature T1 of 206.1° C. (Example 2), 216.1° C. (Example 1), and 230.2° C. (Example 3) (Fig. 4), each of which falls within the claimed range of 100 ≤ T1 ≤ 250. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen at an exothermic onset temperature T1 within the claimed range of 100 ≤ T1 ≤ 250.
Claim 7: Lee discloses that, as tested by differential scanning calorimetry, the negative active material layer exhibits an initial exothermic peak in thermal decomposition having an apex at 370° C. to 390° C. ([0011], [0065]), which is an initial peak temperature T2 falling within the claimed range of 140 ≤ T2 ≤ 440.
Claim 8: Lee discloses that the negative active material layer exhibits an exothermic peak in thermal decomposition having an apex at 450° C. to 510° C. ([0014], [0067]), and that the differential scanning calorimetry measurement is conducted over a ramp to 600° C. ([0068]) with no exothermic peak disclosed above 510° C. The complete-decomposition temperature T3 — the temperature at which the exothermic decomposition of the layer concludes — therefore corresponds to the conclusion of that highest-temperature exothermic peak and falls within the claimed range of 400 ≤ T3 ≤ 550. Because Lee discloses no exothermic event above the 450° C. to 510° C. peak within the measurement to 600° C., the exothermic decomposition is complete at a temperature at or modestly above the apex of that peak and within the claimed range, notwithstanding that the apex alone marks the maximum rather than the conclusion of the peak. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen a complete-decomposition temperature, T3, within the claimed range of 400 ≤ T3 ≤ 550.
Claim 9: Lee discloses a graphite negative active material layer whose thermal decomposition is characterized by differential scanning calorimetry — an exothermic onset, an exothermic peak, and a peak area (heating value) W of 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]) — and Lee engineers the composition of that layer specifically to control its exothermic decomposition behavior and thereby improve the thermal stability of the negative electrode ([0011], [0065], [0067]). The heat released by Lee’s layer corresponds to an exothermic power per unit mass on the order of the claimed lower bound, such that a value within 0.035 ≤ P ≤ 0.280 mW/mg lies within the range attainable by ordinary adjustment of the layer. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value of such a variable by routine experimentation is not inventive (MPEP 2144.05, subsection II). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen an exothermic power per unit mass P within the claimed range of 0.035 ≤ P ≤ 0.280 mW/mg through routine optimization of the thermal decomposition behavior of the negative active material layer of Lee.
Claim 10: Lee discloses that the exothermic onset temperature T1 as low as 206.3° C. (Example 2, Fig. 4), which is close to — approximately 1° C. above — the claimed upper bound of 205° C. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range and the prior-art value, although not overlapping, are close (MPEP 2144.05, subsection I), the difference of approximately 1° C. further being within the ordinary variation of a differential scanning calorimetry onset measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen an exothermic onset temperature T1 within the claimed range of 110 ≤ T1 ≤ 205.
Claim 11: Lee discloses that the initial peak temperature T2 in thermal decomposition of the negative active material layer has an apex at 370° C. to 390° C. ([0011], [0065]), which abuts the claimed range of 150 ≤ T2 ≤ 370 at 370° C. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior-art range overlap (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12: Lee discloses that the negative active material comprises at least one of natural graphite or artificial graphite ([0096]), the worked negative electrode using both natural graphite and artificial graphite ([0169]).
Claim 13: Lee discloses that the negative active material layer comprises negative active material particles and pores, the graphite particles defining pores within which finely divided carbon particles are disposed ([0082] - [0083]) and the negative electrode having a measurable total pore area ([0114]).
Claim 19: Lee discloses an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device: the lithium secondary battery of Lee is disclosed for use in an electric vehicle ([0042]), i.e., an apparatus comprising the electrochemical device, wherein the electrochemical device comprises the positive electrode, separator, electrolyte solution, and negative electrode having the negative active material layer satisfying A = W/( ID/IG), 150 ≤ A ≤ 1000, W, and ID/IG as recited above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 20: Lee discloses that the electrochemical device satisfies at least characteristic (a), 20 ≤ W ≤ 490, because W is 50 J/g to 200 J/g ([0069]), as recited above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Piao (US 2020/0185719 A1).
Claim 14: Lee discloses a porous negative active material layer characterized by total pore area ([0114]) but does not expressly disclose a porosity of 20% to 50%. Piao discloses a graphite negative electrode for an electrochemical device pressed to a porosity of 28% ([0086]), which falls within the claimed range of 20% to 50%. Piao teaches that increasing the particle porosity and pore size improves electrolyte wettability and shortens the lithium-ion conduction path ([0044]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the negative electrode with a porosity within the claimed 20% to 50% range, to obtain the predictable improvement in electrolyte wettability and rate capability.
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park (US 2014/0205913 A1).
Claim 15: Lee discloses an electrolyte solution comprising a carbonate solvent and LiPF6 ([0172]) but employs ethyl methyl carbonate in place of propylene carbonate and does not disclose the recited ethylene carbonate / propylene carbonate / diethyl carbonate proportions. Park, directed to an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, discloses a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and diethyl carbonate (DEC) ([0022]; Table 1). In Example 3 of Park, EC is 30, PC is 10, and DEC is 30 (Table 1), giving X/Y = 3.0 and Z/Y = 3.0; in Example 4, EC is 20, PC is 10, and DEC is 30, giving X/Y = 2.0 and Z/Y = 3.0. Each falls within the claimed ranges of 1.5 ≤ X/Y ≤ 8 and 2.5 ≤ Z/Y ≤ 25. Park also teaches that the inclusion of propylene carbonate in the EC/DEC solvent improves low-temperature discharge characteristics ([0080; Fig. 5); the same benefit the present specification attributes to its EC/PC/DEC solvent. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an EC/PC/DEC solvent in the recited proportions in the lithium secondary battery, to obtain the predictable improvement in low-temperature discharge performance.
Claim 16: Examples 3 and 4 of Park give Z/Y = 3.0 (Table 1), which falls within the claimed range of 3 ≤ Z/Y ≤ 15.
Claim 17: Park discloses that the ethylene carbonate is present in about 1 to about 40 volume % (with about 15 to about 35 volume % disclosed), the propylene carbonate in about 1 to about 40 volume % (with about 5 to about 15 volume % disclosed), and the diethyl carbonate in about 1 to about 50 volume % (with about 20 to about 45 volume % disclosed) of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0023]). Given the comparable densities of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate, these volume percentages approximate the corresponding mass percentages, and the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges of 15 ≤ X ≤ 32, 3 ≤ Y ≤ 12, and 30 ≤ Z ≤ 70. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior-art range overlap (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at X, Y, and Z within the ranges recited in claim 17, for the reasons given with respect to claim 15.
Claim 18: The ethylene carbonate (about 15 to about 35 volume %), propylene carbonate (about 5 to about 15 volume %), and diethyl carbonate (about 20 to about 45 volume %) ranges disclosed by Park ([0023]) overlap the claimed ranges of 16 ≤ X ≤ 30, 4 ≤ Y ≤ 11, and 35 ≤ Z ≤ 60, the diethyl carbonate ranges overlapping at 35 to 45 volume %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where a claimed range and a prior-art range overlap (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at X, Y, and Z within the ranges recited in claim 18, for the reasons given with respect to claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATEF A SHAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0364. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATEF A SHAT/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights